[[1ponders] (Paul)]

Hi Dassar, if you're looking for an increase in aperture, keep the 90 and get a 12" dob with Argonarvis. It'll work out cheaper than selling the 90 and getting the 10.

The increase in going up to a 10 really won't be that noticeable after the 8. You will notice it but it won't be spectacular. I used to have the 8"LX200 GPS with a wedge. I still have the 8" but as OTA only and have mounted it on a G11 (I have a gm8 as well but I feel it's a little to light for an 8" plus a guidescope)

You could just get a wedge and work with the 90. Many people do great work with the 90's. But as you said there is the mirror shift to deal with. That's one of the reasons I stuck with the meade ota, the mirror lock. What I have found though is the mirror shift is really only a pain during focusing and a few preliminary maint actions can usually deal with that. During imaging the shot's are usually so short (digital) that the occassional mirror shift isn't going to be a major drama if you loose one. The same applied for autoguiding. One of the main issues to deal with in a wedge is if you want to image near the SCP. You will find it all but impossible especially using a DSLR. Unless its a small camera you won't fit it between OTA visual back and fork base.

The periodic error in the LX series isn't that much better that I'd be jumping up and down about it. Yes it's better and yes the 200's have PPEC, but a mount with less PE would be better to start with in the first place.

Personally I really didn't enjoy trying to polar align the wedge mounted LX200. There seemed to be too many bits and pieces that flexed or moved. It was a challenge (read pain in the backside) though certainly possible. If you still decide to go the fork mount way there are a number of better wedge options out there than the Meade super wedge. Oh and you will need to spend a couple of hundred bucks on a 3D weight system for it as the standard meade system isn't sufficient.

This read may seem like a real downer on the LX200. It's not intended to be. I wish I still had my scope for quick setup for visual goto. It is a great scope with imho relatively good to very good optics (there is a bit of variablity I think. again jmo) easy to use, and pretty reliable and accurate. But if your long term view is imaging, get an equatorial mount of some sort. For the size of scope you're looking at, plus weight of guidescope, camera, cables yadda yadda, the very minimum you are looking for the the EQ 6/Losmandy G11/Celestron CGE (?)

A lot of these issues can be dealt with if you are permanently pier mounting the scope, but for a mobile scope I found it a bit of a pain. But some people are quite happy to go through this and turn out fantastic images. But I'd be interested in doing a side by side setup and image session between an LX series mount and an EQ. (Maybe there is a review in there somewhere for someone).

So the long and the short is, if you can afford it, spend the money on a good EQ style mount, get a Celestron 9.25 (or maybe even a fast newt or schmidt newt) and a good quality ED guidescope/widefield imaging scope. If you haven't done a lot of imaging before I think you'll find you'll spend quite a bit of time getting the feel of a system using the ED scope, rather than the 9.25. Oh and make sure you get a focal reducer for the SCT.

Bit of ramble but hope that helps
CS